Main | About | Tutorial | FAQ | Links | Wiki | Forum | World News | World Map | World Ranking | Nations | Electoral Calendar | Party Organizations | Treaties |
Login | Register |
Game Time: January 5461
Next month in: 01:40:27
Server time: 18:19:32, March 28, 2024 CET
Currently online (5): ADM Drax | hexaus18 | hexaus19 | Icetead | R Drax | Record: 63 on 23:13:00, July 26, 2019 CET

We are working on a brand new version of the game! If you want to stay informed, read our blog and register for our mailing list.

Bill: Religious Freedom Act

Details

Submitted by[?]: AM Radical Libertarian Party

Status[?]: passed

Votes: This is an ordinary bill. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.

Voting deadline: January 3518

Description[?]:

Recent actions of the government have eroded the traditional freedom of the people to worship as they please, and to have the necessary information to make an informed choice.

We propose to restore these freedoms.

Proposals

Debate

These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:

Date19:59:05, July 10, 2013 CET
FromAM Radical Libertarian Party
ToDebating the Religious Freedom Act
MessageWe welcome input from all other parties, and will make changes if they on not severely compromise the intent of this bill.

Date00:09:47, July 11, 2013 CET
FromLikaton Unity Party
ToDebating the Religious Freedom Act
MessageDorum,

We find that this omnibus bill placed forward by the AMRLP contains, unsurprisingly, both points at which we concur, points at which we believe compromise is likely, and points in which we completely disagree. We will review each article for our colleagues.

1 - This is an acceptable principle that defers a rather innocent and altogether unnecessarily federal decision to the local level. We agree with the small government and devolution in this particular instant.

2 - We do not agree with the proposed change. As it is, it is acceptable but not ideal. The LUP proposes the "The government determines which missionaries are permitted to visit on a person by person basis." This will allow the government the ability to intervene prior to any issues that might plague the nation by certain unfriendly or anti-Likaton religions visiting our country. As a principle, most would be allowed, but the LUP does not believe in the principles of so called "diplomatic" immunity.

3 - We agree with the AMRLP on this issue.

4 - The LUP strongly disagrees with the proposed amendment. The government should maintain some control over this portion of society. We'd recommend the government maintains a veto instead of selecting the head of a religion.

5 - We prefer the original to the amendment. In the name of compromise however, we are willing to allow this.

6 - We'd issue once again attending the medium of values, neither the extreme of no advertising or simply unwatched free advertising. Nobody has that, including private advertising businesses must give to some government overwatch. We'd recommend that religions simply receive government approval prior to advertising.

7 - Once again we go from having no schools, to no regulations on the schools. We recommend "Religious schools are allowed, but are strictly regulated. Only recognised religions may set up religious schools."

8 - Is acceptable under compromise.

We look forward to working with our colleagues in the Dorum to build a better religious world in Likatonia, but one that does not forsake the intimacy of our government.

Date16:59:48, July 17, 2013 CET
FromAM Radical Libertarian Party
ToDebating the Religious Freedom Act
MessageAs to the above comments:

#2 - (which we believe refers to Article 4 in the current bill) We have no intention of granting any sort of immunity to these individuals, should they choose to enter Likatonia they are fully subject to our laws. We do not believe that they should, however, be subject to any stricter intake controls than any other visitor.

#4 - (which we believe refers to Article 5) - this is an issue that we may have difficulty with, as it is our contention that the government should have no control over religious organizations. We would no more accept this than we would to allow religious bodies a veto power over who is head of government.

#6 - again we do not believe that religious bodies should be treated any different from any other group. Their advertising should meet the same standards as personal or corporate ads.

#7 - we are willing to compromise to the extent of "Religious schools are allowed, but are strictly regulated." We have a problem with the concept of "recognized religions", as this gives too much control to the government over its citizens spiritual life.

Date16:52:36, July 18, 2013 CET
FromLikaton Unity Party
ToDebating the Religious Freedom Act
MessageWe are willing to accept these compromises and move forward with this bill. We are happy with the work we've been able to accomplish and congratulate the AMRLP on working to make this bill better for the Likatonian people.

subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe

Voting

Vote Seats
yes
 

Total Seats: 149

no

    Total Seats: 0

    abstain
     

    Total Seats: 76


    Random fact: Information about the population of each country can be found on the Population Information thread: http://forum.particracy.net/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=8663

    Random quote: "Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." - Tenche Coxe

    This page was generated with PHP
    Copyright 2004-2010 Wouter Lievens
    Queries performed: 85